|
|
You're in the
inetserver asp db
group:I'm leaving SQL Server for another woman, err, DB
inetserver asp db:
Hey,
I've been doing ASP web apps with SQL Server 2000 for a few years now, but now I need to purchase a DB server license for a new web server (which will only be running 5-6 large bandwidth sites) and there's no way I can afford to use SQL Server. At my previous company I set up the SQL server installation myself and it was a snap, so as a very shallow techie I'm a little spoiled in that regard. That server is running about 40 web site databases without any problem. My initial reaction is to go with MySQL, which I've also done a couple of apps with, and the large field lengths are plus, but finding an easy- to-use admin tool has been a bit vexing. I've also read about PostGreSQL, which sounds good. But I have no idea what the tradeoffs are. Is SQL Server less secure due to Microsoft vulnerabilities? Is MYSQL faster because it doesn't use as many system resources? Is PostGreSQL as well supported as MySQL, which seems to have a larger user base? I know some of you have strong opinions about this, so I'd be happy to hear why or why not I should use any of the above, and if you have any set-up or SQL-to-migration advice, I'd be most grateful.
My understanding is that the new SQL Server Express (currently in beta) will
be free, while the Studio Express items will cost money. If SQL Express doesn't allow connections from Internet users, I think there's a version of SQL Server which is cheaper than the full one. MS just announced this like 3 weeks ago. It's about $3K if I recall. [quoted text, click to view] "Byron" <spamagnet@dorrk.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1cb4d071902ece7b9897d1@newshost.allthenewsgroups.com... > Hey, > > I've been doing ASP web apps with SQL Server 2000 for a few years now, > but now I need to purchase a DB server license for a new web server > (which will only be running 5-6 large bandwidth sites) and there's no > way I can afford to use SQL Server. At my previous company I set up the > SQL server installation myself and it was a snap, so as a very shallow > techie I'm a little spoiled in that regard. That server is running about > 40 web site databases without any problem. > > My initial reaction is to go with MySQL, which I've also done a couple > of apps with, and the large field lengths are plus, but finding an easy- > to-use admin tool has been a bit vexing. I've also read about > PostGreSQL, which sounds good. But I have no idea what the tradeoffs > are. Is SQL Server less secure due to Microsoft vulnerabilities? Is > MYSQL faster because it doesn't use as many system resources? Is > PostGreSQL as well supported as MySQL, which seems to have a larger user > base? > > I know some of you have strong opinions about this, so I'd be happy to > hear why or why not I should use any of the above, and if you have any > set-up or SQL-to-migration advice, I'd be most grateful. > > > Thanks.
[quoted text, click to view]
> SQL Express and MSDE are unfortunately not allowed for use with websites. You are not allowed to charge for commercial hosting and then shuck your customers into MSDE. However, I don't see it written anywhere that they can't be used for your own web site (provided you can deal with its inherent limitations). -- Please post DDL, sample data and desired results. See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
hi there.
after finding out we were sold a wrong license (5-user instead of cpu) by a microsoft sales, we decided to go for PostGreSQL 8. so for the last few days i've been testing pgsql and migrating the databases. what i can tell so far: - pgsql's performance is good enough for webhosting stuff - neither MSSQL nor PGSQL stick to SQL-92 in all aspects. so some work on your sql statements is needed for migration. - the featureset of pgsql is much closer to mssql than mysql's one. - odbc/ole db drivers are not yet that comfortable as with mssql. you will have to change some of your code (for example BOOLEAN and DATETIME fieldtypes are handled differently) - replication support in pgsql is very limited - implement the use of transactions to greatly speed up pgsql just some random thoughts. 4 out of 5 dbs are migrated without any big issues. cheers, thomas [quoted text, click to view] "Byron" <spamagnet@dorrk.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1cb4d071902ece7b9897d1@newshost.allthenewsgroups.com... > Hey, > > I've been doing ASP web apps with SQL Server 2000 for a few years now, > but now I need to purchase a DB server license for a new web server > (which will only be running 5-6 large bandwidth sites) and there's no > way I can afford to use SQL Server. At my previous company I set up the > SQL server installation myself and it was a snap, so as a very shallow > techie I'm a little spoiled in that regard. That server is running about > 40 web site databases without any problem. > > My initial reaction is to go with MySQL, which I've also done a couple > of apps with, and the large field lengths are plus, but finding an easy- > to-use admin tool has been a bit vexing. I've also read about > PostGreSQL, which sounds good. But I have no idea what the tradeoffs > are. Is SQL Server less secure due to Microsoft vulnerabilities? Is > MYSQL faster because it doesn't use as many system resources? Is > PostGreSQL as well supported as MySQL, which seems to have a larger user > base? > > I know some of you have strong opinions about this, so I'd be happy to > hear why or why not I should use any of the above, and if you have any > set-up or SQL-to-migration advice, I'd be most grateful. > > > Thanks.
SQL Express and MSDE are unfortunately not allowed for use with websites.
[quoted text, click to view] "middletree" <middletree@htomail.com> wrote in message news:%23oO8GKgNFHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > My understanding is that the new SQL Server Express (currently in beta) > will > be free, while the Studio Express items will cost money. > > If SQL Express doesn't allow connections from Internet users, I think > there's a version of SQL Server which is cheaper than the full one. MS > just > announced this like 3 weeks ago. It's about $3K if I recall. > > > > "Byron" <spamagnet@dorrk.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.1cb4d071902ece7b9897d1@newshost.allthenewsgroups.com... >> Hey, >> >> I've been doing ASP web apps with SQL Server 2000 for a few years now, >> but now I need to purchase a DB server license for a new web server >> (which will only be running 5-6 large bandwidth sites) and there's no >> way I can afford to use SQL Server. At my previous company I set up the >> SQL server installation myself and it was a snap, so as a very shallow >> techie I'm a little spoiled in that regard. That server is running about >> 40 web site databases without any problem. >> >> My initial reaction is to go with MySQL, which I've also done a couple >> of apps with, and the large field lengths are plus, but finding an easy- >> to-use admin tool has been a bit vexing. I've also read about >> PostGreSQL, which sounds good. But I have no idea what the tradeoffs >> are. Is SQL Server less secure due to Microsoft vulnerabilities? Is >> MYSQL faster because it doesn't use as many system resources? Is >> PostGreSQL as well supported as MySQL, which seems to have a larger user >> base? >> >> I know some of you have strong opinions about this, so I'd be happy to >> hear why or why not I should use any of the above, and if you have any >> set-up or SQL-to-migration advice, I'd be most grateful. >> >> >> Thanks. > >
[quoted text, click to view]
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:50:36 +0200, "Thomas" <me@alternize.com> wrote: >after finding out we were sold a wrong license (5-user instead of cpu) by a >microsoft sales, we decided to go for PostGreSQL 8. so for the last few days >i've been testing pgsql and migrating the databases. PostGreSQL is better than MySQL for a lot of reasons, but the features aren't as complete as Microsoft SQL. Then agian, you probably won't use most of those features anyway. [quoted text, click to view] >what i can tell so far: >- pgsql's performance is good enough for webhosting stuff >- neither MSSQL nor PGSQL stick to SQL-92 in all aspects. so some work on >your sql statements is needed for migration. >- the featureset of pgsql is much closer to mssql than mysql's one. >- odbc/ole db drivers are not yet that comfortable as with mssql. you will >have to change some of your code (for example BOOLEAN and DATETIME >fieldtypes are handled differently) >- replication support in pgsql is very limited >- implement the use of transactions to greatly speed up pgsql Migrations also depend greatly on the database coding that has been done. For instance, one of the apps we have uses DTS heavily, something pretty much dedicated to using Microsoft's product. On the other hand, we have a bunch of stuff running on MSDE, which could easily be ported to MySQL or PostGre SQL. As long as you work through the differences, you shouldn't have any real trouble adapting to other database versions. Provided the feature set and performance meets your needs, there's no overwhelming reaosn to use a Microsoft product here. Jeff [quoted text, click to view] >just some random thoughts. 4 out of 5 dbs are migrated without any big
>issues. > >cheers, >thomas > >"Byron" <spamagnet@dorrk.com> wrote in message >news:MPG.1cb4d071902ece7b9897d1@newshost.allthenewsgroups.com... >> Hey, >> >> I've been doing ASP web apps with SQL Server 2000 for a few years now, >> but now I need to purchase a DB server license for a new web server >> (which will only be running 5-6 large bandwidth sites) and there's no >> way I can afford to use SQL Server. At my previous company I set up the >> SQL server installation myself and it was a snap, so as a very shallow >> techie I'm a little spoiled in that regard. That server is running about >> 40 web site databases without any problem. >> >> My initial reaction is to go with MySQL, which I've also done a couple >> of apps with, and the large field lengths are plus, but finding an easy- >> to-use admin tool has been a bit vexing. I've also read about >> PostGreSQL, which sounds good. But I have no idea what the tradeoffs >> are. Is SQL Server less secure due to Microsoft vulnerabilities? Is >> MYSQL faster because it doesn't use as many system resources? Is >> PostGreSQL as well supported as MySQL, which seems to have a larger user >> base? >> >> I know some of you have strong opinions about this, so I'd be happy to >> hear why or why not I should use any of the above, and if you have any >> set-up or SQL-to-migration advice, I'd be most grateful. >> >> >> Thanks. >
Hi Byron
My two-penth is that I've been using a combo of ASP classic and MySQL 4 for about 8 months now and the speed seems to be on a par with MSSQL as far as web serving goes. Downsides are no SProc support and a few syntax quirks such as TOP 5 is LIMIT 5 in MySQL, but the DDL is roughly the same. One thing that you do have to watch if you use an ISP's MySQL installation is that most ISPs seem to have their MySQL servers on unix/linux and are case sensitive. If you install a test enviro installation on your Windows PC you don't realise that this installation automatically changes all table names (not field names) to lcase. When you restore your test DB into your ISP's DB, if you're as unlucky as me you will probably find that your in-line queries don't work, because you are sending ucase calls to lcase tables. Nightmare!!! Rgds Mac [quoted text, click to view] "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message news:OglPDbiNFHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > SQL Express and MSDE are unfortunately not allowed for use with websites. You are not allowed to charge for commercial hosting and then shuck your customers into MSDE. However, I don't see it written anywhere that they can't be used for your own web site (provided you can deal with its inherent limitations). -- Please post DDL, sample data and desired results. See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
In article <#LUii$uNFHA.204@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, nospam@nospam.com
says... [quoted text, click to view] > Hi Byron > > My two-penth is that I've been using a combo of ASP classic and MySQL 4 for > about 8 months now and the speed seems to be on a par with MSSQL as far as > web serving goes. > > Downsides are no SProc support and a few syntax quirks such as TOP 5 is > LIMIT 5 in MySQL, but the DDL is roughly the same. > > One thing that you do have to watch if you use an ISP's MySQL installation > is that most ISPs seem to have their MySQL servers on unix/linux and are > case sensitive. If you install a test enviro installation on your Windows > PC you don't realise that this installation automatically changes all table > names (not field names) to lcase. > > When you restore your test DB into your ISP's DB, if you're as unlucky as me > you will probably find that your in-line queries don't work, because you are > sending ucase calls to lcase tables. Nightmare!!! We're leasing a new dedicated Windows 2003 server from 1&1 so we'll be buying the db license and installing it ourselves. I downloaded postgresql onto my XP PRo laptop to play around with it and hit an error right out of the gate, and there hasn't been any traffic on their newsgroup since. I don't know if I can struggle with such a critical piece of software without a healthy community of amateur usenet support! I'll have to give mySQL4 another try. I had given that look last weekend, but had trouble with the admin gui (I am phobic of command lines). Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'm sure I'll have more questions about
[quoted text, click to view]
>I downloaded postgresql onto my XP PRo laptop to play around with it and >hit an error right out of the gate, and there hasn't been any traffic on >their newsgroup since. I don't know if I can struggle with such a >critical piece of software without a healthy community of amateur usenet >support! You just nailed one of the best reasons for working with a commercial database such as Microsoft's SQL Server. You do get what you pay for. There is (or at least used to be, I haven't looked in a year or more) commercial support available for MySQL and PostGreSQL. Yes, you pay for it.
or join the pgsql mailing list(s) with many skilled users and developers
helping day & night ;-) - thomas [quoted text, click to view] "Jeff Cochran" <jeff.nospam@zina.com> wrote in message news:425004a0.866061410@msnews.microsoft.com... > >I downloaded postgresql onto my XP PRo laptop to play around with it and >>hit an error right out of the gate, and there hasn't been any traffic on >>their newsgroup since. I don't know if I can struggle with such a >>critical piece of software without a healthy community of amateur usenet >>support! > > You just nailed one of the best reasons for working with a commercial > database such as Microsoft's SQL Server. You do get what you pay for. > > There is (or at least used to be, I haven't looked in a year or more) > commercial support available for MySQL and PostGreSQL. Yes, you pay > for it. > > Jeff
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |